Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP Data is on file at the Library of Congress
ISBN 978–0–19–087986–0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
Foreword
Marshall Goldsmith
Contributors
1. Introduction and Overview to The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback 1
Allan H. Church, David W. Bracken, John W. Fleenor, and Dale S. Rose
2. What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? 11
David W. Bracken
SECTION I 360 FOR DECISION-MAKING
3. Best Practices When Using 360 Feedback for Performance Appraisal 19 Emily D. Campion, Michael C. Campion, and Michael A. Campion
4. Historical Challenges of Using 360 Feedback for Performance Evaluation 61 Manuel London and James W. Smither
5. Technological Innovations in the Use of 360 Feedback for Performance Management 77
Steven T. Hunt, Joe Sherwood, and Lauren M. Bidwell
6. Strategic 360 Feedback for Talent Management 97 Allan H. Church
7. Using Stakeholder Input to Support Strategic Talent Development at Board and Senior Executive Levels: A Practitioner’s Perspective 123 Paul Winum
SECTION II 360 FOR DEVELOPMENT
8. Application of 360 Feedback for Leadership Development
Cynthia McCauley and Stéphane Brutus
9. Moving Beyond “The Great Debate”: Recasting Developmental 360 Feedback in Talent Management
Jason J. Dahling and Samantha L. Chau
10. Team Development With Strategic 360 Feedback: Learning From Each Other
Allison Traylor and Eduardo Salas
11. From Insight to Successful Behavior Change: The Real Impact of Development-Focused 360 Feedback
Kenneth M. Nowack
12. Integrating Personality Assessment With 360 Feedback in Leadership Development and Coaching
Robert B. Kaiser and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
13. Strategic 360 Feedback for Organization Development
Allan H. Church and W. Warner Burke
SECTION III 360 METHODOLOGY AND MEASUREMENT
14. Factors Affecting the Validity of Strategic 360 Feedback Processes
John W. Fleenor
15. Can We Improve Rater Performance?
David W. Bracken and Christopher T. Rotolo
16. Rater Congruency: Why Ratings of the Same Person Differ
Adrian Furnham
17. Is 360 Feedback a Predictor or Criterion Measure?
Elaine D. Pulakos and Dale S. Rose
SECTION IV ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATIONS
18. The Journey From Development to Appraisal: 360 Feedback at General Mills 327 Tracy M. Maylett
19. Harnessing the Potential of 360 Feedback in Executive Education Programming 343 Jay A. Conger
20. An Alternative Form of Feedback: Using Stakeholder Interviews to Assess Reputation at Walmart 353 Lorraine Stomski
21. Mitigating Succession Risk in the C- Suite: A Case Study 361 Seymour Adler
22. Integrating Strategic 360 Feedback at a Financial Services Organization 373 William J. Shepherd
23. Leveraging Team 360 to Drive Business-Enhancing Change Across the Enterprise at Whirlpool Corporation 385 Stefanie Mockler, Rich McGourty, and Keith Goudy
24. What Kind of Talent Do We Have Here? Using 360s to Establish a Baseline Assessment of Talent 397 Christine Corbet Boyce and Beth Linderbaum
SECTION V CRITICAL AND EMERGING TOPICS
25. 360 Feedback Versus Alternative Forms of Feedback: Which Feedback Methods Are Best Suited to Enable Change?
Dale S. Rose
26. Gender, Diversity, and 360 Feedback 427 Anna Marie Valerio and Katina Sawyer
27. Using Analytics to Gain More Insights From 360
Alexis A. Fink and Evan F. Sinar
28. The Ethical Context of 360 Feedback
William H. Macey and Karen M. Barbera
29. The Legal Environment for 360 Feedback
John C. Scott, Justin M. Scott, and Katey E. Foster
30. Using 360 Feedback to Shape a Profession: Lessons Learned Over 30 Years From the Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS)
Dave Ulrich
31. The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback: Themes, Prognostications, and Sentiments
Allan H. Church, David W. Bracken, John W. Fleenor, and Dale S. Rose
FOREWORD
The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback is a compilation of essays about the various aspects of feedback written by the top practitioners and academics in the field. You will not find a more comprehensive volume about this subject, so I congratulate you for picking this book and exploring this most important subject.
Many refer to me as one of the “pioneers of 360 Feedback,” which just means that I have been studying the subject for a long time! In the years that I have been an executive coach, I have found that the key issue to recognize in giving feedback to top performers is that the “no-news-is-good-news” feedback approach is not an effective management technique for handling your superstars. Too often, we assume that these individuals know how much we value their contributions, and we take the lazy approach to providing feedback: “You know you’re doing a good job.” Or worse: “Write your own performance review, and I’ll sign it.” Sound familiar? Here are some quick tips to more effectively discuss performance—and motivate—your top talent:
1. Approach the discussion with the same preparation and attention to detail that you focus on team members with problem or growth opportunities. If they truly are valued by you and the organization, give them the thoughtfulness, respect, and time that they deserve.
2. Recognize that the quickest way to encourage a top performer to start looking for a job elsewhere is to tell them: “There is nothing that you need to work on.”
Based on our database of over 4 million leaders, the highest ranked behavior of our top performers is a commitment to self-improvement. These people want—and need—to learn and grow. Help them identify opportunities.
3. Specify the value that these performers bring to you and to the organization. Express the cause and effect of their contributions/role in the organization and the appreciation that you personally feel.
4. Be as honest as possible about future opportunities within the organization. Do not commit beyond your span of control. It is better to be candid and maintain trust than to have these individuals base decisions on deals that you cannot keep.
5. Recognize that as their leader, you have the greatest ability to retain these human assets. The number one factor that influences people’s intent to stay or leave a job is their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their leader, so keep them challenged; provide them with ongoing feedback; and recognize/express your appreciation for their contributions. Most important, recognize that you will have the most impact on their continued growth and satisfaction.
These are just a few of the things I have learned about feedback over the years. I hope they are helpful to you.
In The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback, you are going to learn much more from exceptional thought leaders on the subject, including Dave Ulrich, Cindy McCauley, Manny London, and, of course, the editors Allan, David, John, and Dale.
I know you will enjoy this outstanding work about Strategic 360 Feedback, and that applying what you learn here in your organization, with your teams and leaders, will take you and your companies from where you are to where you want to be. Life is good.
Marshall Goldsmith
CONTRIBUTORS
Seymour Adler, PhD Partner, Aon Hewitt
Karen M. Barbera, PhD
Head of Client Delivery CultureIQ
Lauren M. Bidwell, PhD Research Scientist
Human Capital Management Research
SAP SuccessFactors
Christine Corbet Boyce, PhD
Vice President and Principal Consultant Right Management, Manpower Group
David W. Bracken, PhD
Principal, DWBracken & Associates Professor, Academic Program Coordinator
Keiser University Graduate Studies
Stéphane Brutus, PhD
RBC Professor of Motivation and Employee Performance
John Molson School of Business Concordia University
W. Warner Burke, PhD
E. L. Thorndike Professor of Psychology and Education
Department of Organization and Leadership Teachers College Columbia University
Emily D. Campion, PhD
Assistant Professor of Management
Old Dominion University Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
Michael A. Campion, PhD Krannert Chair Professor of Management Purdue University Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
Michael C. Campion, PhD
Vackar College of Business and Entrepreneurship
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, PhD
Chief Talent Scientist, Manpower Group Professor of Business Psychology University College of London Visiting Professor, Columbia University
Samantha L. Chau, PhD Director
Talent Assessment, Performance, and Succession Management Novo Nordisk Inc.
Allan H. Church, PhD
Senior Vice President
Global Talent Assessment and Development PepsiCo.
Jay A. Conger, DBA
Henry R. Kravis Professor of Leadership Studies
Claremont McKenna College
Jason J. Dahling, PhD Professor and Chair Psychology Department The College of New Jersey
Alexis A. Fink, PhD Senior Leader, Talent Management Intel
Katey E. Foster, PhD Associate Director and Litigation Associate Practice Leader APTMetrics Inc.
John W. Fleenor, PhD
Senior Researcher
Center for Creative Leadership
Adrian Furnham, DSc, DLit, DPhil Department of Leadership and Organizational Behavior Norwegian Business School
Marshall Goldsmith, PhD Founder, Marshall Goldsmith Group Professor, Management Practice Tuck School of Business (Dartmouth)
Keith Goudy, PhD Managing Partner Vantage Leadership Consulting
Steven T. Hunt, PhD Senior Vice President Human Capital Management Research SAP SuccessFactors
Robert B. Kaiser, PhD Kaiser Leadership Solutions
Editor-in-Chief, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
Beth Linderbaum, PhD Vice President and Principal Consultant Right Management, ManpowerGroup
Manuel London, PhD
Dean, College of Business SUNY Distinguished Professor of Management Stony Brook University
William H. Macey, PhD Senior Research Fellow CultureFactors Inc.
Tracy M. Maylett, EdD
Chief Executive Officer, DecisionWise Faculty, Organizational Behavior/HR Marriott School of Business Brigham Young University
Cynthia McCauley, PhD Senior Fellow Center for Creative Leadership
Stefanie Mockler, MA Consultant and Head of Client Insights Vantage Leadership Consulting
Kenneth M. Nowack, PhD Chief Research Officer and President Envisia Learning Inc. Editor-in-Chief, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
Elaine D. Pulakos, PhD Chief Executive Officer PDRI
Dale S. Rose, PhD President 3D Group
Christopher T. Rotolo, PhD Vice President Global Talent Management and Organization Development PepsiCo
Eduardo Salas, PhD
Allyn R. and Gladys M. Cline Professor and Chair
Department of Psychological Sciences
Rice University
Katina Sawyer, PhD
Assistant Professor of Management
The George Washington University
John C. Scott, PhD
Chief Operating Officer and Cofounder
APT Metrics
Past Editor-in-Chief, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Scott Employment Law
P.C.
William J. Shepherd, PhD
Director, Enterprise Learning and Development
Wendy’s
Joe Sherwood, MS Graduate Student
Portland State University
Evan F. Sinar, PhD
Chief Scientist and Vice President
DDI
James W. Smither, PhD Professor
Management and Leadership Department La Salle University
Lorraine Stomski, PhD Vice President, Global Learning & Leadership Walmart
Allison Traylor Doctoral Student Rice University
Dave Ulrich Rensis Likert Professor of Business
Ross School of Business University of Michigan Partner, The RBL Group
Anna Marie Valerio, PhD President
Executive Leadership Strategies
Paul Winum, PhD Senior Partner
RHR International LLP
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW TO THE HANDBOOK OF STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK
ALLAN H. CHURCH, DAVID W. BRACKEN, JOHN W. FLEENOR, AND DALE S. ROSE
Where would we be without feedback? It is a constant aspect of our daily lives. We received feedback as children on how to behave, as students on what we have learned, as friends and partners in our relationships, as parents on how we are raising our children, and of course, as employees in the workplace. Whether it is feedback on our performance via a formal appraisal process; from a career conversation regarding our career prospects; or from our direct reports, peers, and others regarding our leadership and management behaviors, there is no escaping the impact or role of this “gift,” as some people like to call it, in our lives. It should come as no surprise then, that the act of collecting and delivering feedback in organizational settings has evolved from a disjointed set of informal conversations to a formal process that is a staple of human resource (HR) and management practices in the workplace today. Although many terms have been used since its inception in the early 1950s and surge in popularity in the 1990s in organization development (OD) and industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, today what we call 360 Feedback is one of the most standard and commonly used HR practices in organizations to measure, develop, and drive change in employee behavior (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016). Recent benchmark studies, for example, have reported that upward of 50% of all organizations have some form of 360 Feedback mechanism in place that is used for talent management decision making purposes (e.g., 3D Group, 2016; United States
Office of Personnel Management, 2012). The most recent overview of 360 Feedback in the field, offered by Bracken et al. (2016), defines the process this way:
360 Feedback is a process for collecting, quantifying, and reporting co- worker observations about an individual (i.e., a ratee) that facilitates/ enables the (1) evaluation of rater perceptions of the degree to which specific behaviors are exhibited, and the (2) analysis of meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions across multiple ratees and between specific groups of raters for an individual ratee for the purpose of creating sustainable individual, group and/or organizational change in behaviors valued by the organization. (p. 764)
While the early stages of 360 Feedback, with a few notable exceptions, were primarily focused on individual development coaching, leadership development, and organizational change efforts, today the process of collecting information on employee behaviors from multiple sources (e.g., direct reports, peers, supervisors, customers) has become an integral part of many HR and talent management processes, as well as use for decision-making purposes. These include areas such as performance management, succession planning, high-potential identification, and internal placement and promotion decisions. A recent benchmark study of top companies reported that 70% used 360 Feedback as the number one tool, along with personality measures and interviews, as a means for both assessing and developing their high-potential individuals and senior executives (Church & Rotolo, 2013). While there was considerable debate on the efficacy of data from 360 Feedback processes in these types of applications at the turn of the millennium (e.g., Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; London, 2001), Bracken et al. (2016) noted the debate is over. 360 Feedback is no longer a fad or phenomenon but instead a theoretically grounded, highly researched, and well-established practice area that has been shown to have a significant impact on individual, group (team), and organizational performance.
Almost 20 years ago, Bracken et al. (2001) edited the Handbook of Multisource Feedback, which was the first attempt to bring the best and latest thinking on the topic of 360 Feedback together into a single volume for practitioners and researchers in the field. The title itself reflects the changing nature of the term during that time period. For many years, that edition served as the “manual” for designing, implementing, and evaluating 360 Feedback systems in organizational settings. While several important review articles have appeared since in the academic literature clarifying the definition and intent of the approach, discussing major themes in practice, and offering key learnings to date (e.g., Bracken et al., 2016; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012), nothing with the same breadth or depth
has been offered that has matched the original handbook. Given the myriad changes in the business environment (e.g., globalization, new forms of organizations and the nature of work, generational differences and value structures), new capabilities that technology offers in this area (e.g., digital processes and Big Data applications), and the increasing pressures on organizations to address existing and emerging talent demands (Boudreau, Jesuthasan, & Creelman, 2015; Church & Burke, 2017; McDonnell, 2011; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2013), we felt it was time to revisit the “state of the science and practice” of 360 Feedback with a new definitive handbook on this important topic.
As a result, we decided to close that gap. What you have in your hands is the Strategic Handbook of 360 Feedback. This volume represents a significant leap forward in our collective understanding of the systematic process of collecting behavioral data from multiple sources in the workplace and using the resulting feedback to enhance individual development, inform talent decision-making, identify actionable organizational insights, and drive organizational change. In preparing this handbook, we have once again turned to both deep experts and leading edge researchers and practitioners who are engaged in the art and science of 360 Feedback today across a multitude of applications and organizational contexts. Prominent academics and scientist–practitioners, including Adler, Barbera, Bracken, Brutus, Burke, Campion, Chamorro-Premuzic, Church, Conger, Fink, Fleenor, Furnham, Hunt, Kaiser, London, Macey, McCauley, Nowack, Pulakos, Rose, Rotolo, Salas, Scott, Shephard, Sinar, Smither, Stomski, Ulrich, Valerio, and Winum, among others, have offered entirely new discussions, reviews, and applications on the use of 360 Feedback in organizations today. More than just views of experts, we wanted this book to be practical. We wanted to provide ideas, perspectives, and guidance that any organization could readily apply. To this end, the single largest section presents seven case studies describing the ways 360 Feedback is used by some of the largest, most successful companies of our time, including PepsiCo, Whirlpool, General Mills, and Walmart, along with a handful from other industries that chose to remain anonymous (which seems appropriate for a volume on 360 Feedback). Thus, this book represents a truly important collection of the latest thinking and best practice knowledge available anywhere on the subject.
What makes the handbook unique, however, is our emphasis on the strategic intent and focus of many 360 Feedback processes. Until now, the vast majority of the literature has centered on the “what” and “how” of these data-driven processes. Our goal was to go beyond the basics this time and focus on how 360 Feedback can and should be used at the individual, group, and organization levels to support the strategic goals of the business. While the fundamentals are clearly important, and we do offer some
guidance on those where appropriate, we would also direct the reader back to the original Handbook of Multisource Feedback for tactical guidance that has withstood the test of time. For this handbook, we offer a higher level perspective linked to the systems level of an organization, yet one grounded in practical realities with critical discussions, case studies, deeper application examples, and the latest emerging topics and research to assist the reader in implementing the best and most effective 360 Feedback systems they can.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
In designing the flow and contents for the handbook, we decided to structure the book based on three major sections that we felt would appeal to the variety of readers (and those designing, implementing, and researching 360 Feedback systems today). After an overview of 360 as a strategic process, the contents are presented in the major sections discussed next.
Section I: 360 for Decision-Making
Chapters in Section I focus on the design considerations, implications, and best practices (e.g., the latest technology) for using 360 Feedback in processes impacting employee outcomes, such as performance management, talent management, individual assessment, and high-potential identification and in senior executive succession contexts. Given these areas reflect the evolution of the practice from development to decision-making, we highlight them first to emphasize the shift in their importance in organizations. As organizations seek to qualify the value of 360 Feedback and utilize the results obtained, these are some of the hot topics for many companies today.
Section II: 360 for Development
Chapters in Section II reflect the more deeply rooted and commonly used applications of 360 Feedback, including leadership development, team development, linking with personality data for enhancing impact, OD, and individual behavior change. In addition, new applications, such as using these types of processes for building functional capabilities, are also discussed. While many practitioners will be familiar with some of these approaches, the content presented here represents new thinking and perspectives for consideration. With 20 additional years of experience in these areas, it is clear the field has learned a
great deal about what makes developmental 360 Feedback efforts work (and not work) in a variety of settings.
Section III: 360 Methodology and Measurement
Given the importance of ensuring strategic 360 Feedback applications are actually measuring what they purport to measure, the chapters in Section III focus on helping both practitioners and researchers understand the underlying mechanics of how the process works and the levers needed for success. The emphasis here is on critical measurement topics, such as the best ways to improve rater performance (i.e., enhance the quality and distribution of ratings), understand rating congruence between different sources and what to do about it, whether 360 is a predictor or a criterion measure, and the factors to consider for impacting the validity of these systems.
Section IV: Organization Applications
With a firm understanding of the different types of practices and measurement components involved, Section IV focuses on more specific case study applications in organizational settings. Chapters here focus on the use of 360 Feedback in a variety of contexts for both development and decision-making and reflect a number of different and somewhat intriguing approaches. While some of the topics are similar (though different cases) from those in previous sections, such as performance management, leadership development, talent assessment, and succession, others present unique approaches, including an emphasis on reputation, working with the board of directors, and team interventions.
Section V: Critical and Emerging Topics
The final section of the book focuses on critical and emerging topics for the field. Interestingly, while some of these are consistent with concepts that were identified as early trends in 2000 (e.g., ethics issues, gender and diversity considerations, and legal implications, particularly when using 360 Feedback for decision-making), others represent entirely new areas that are emerging today (e.g., new perspectives using data analytics, alternate forms of feedback, used of 360 to influence the HR profession itself, etc.). The fact that we identified both ongoing critical issues and new emerging trends speaks to the ubiquitous nature of 360 Feedback as an integral HR process.
KEY THEMES IDENTIFIED
In collecting, writing, and reviewing the other 30 chapters included in this volume, we have been struck by a number of themes that kept emerging almost regardless of the topic areas discussed. These are summarized as follows:
1. Purpose Matters: One of the central considerations in any strategic 360 Feedback system is the purpose of the process or program. If one were to read through the contents of this handbook end to end it, might be apparent that some of the recommendations and best practices offered seem to contradict each other in certain areas. Although we would argue that all strategic 360 Feedback efforts should be linked to the goals, values, mission, or vision of the business; be integrated with other HR systems; have solid measurement properties; and be inclusive of the target audience, the way in which decisions are made regarding these factors will be influenced by the overall purpose of the process. For example, a 360 Feedback process designed to drive large-scale organizational change may be focused on an ideal or future state set of cultural imperatives, while one directed at individual development might be based on enhancing, via a highly facilitated coaching and development program, specific leadership competencies needed for individual effectiveness. A performance management–based 360 Feedback program will likely have a different set of process rules, timing requirements, and measurement standards for validation than one focused on group dynamics or team interventions. If the emphasis is on high-potential identification or C-suite succession, the process might be highly selective and perhaps less transparent with respect to certain outputs (e.g., fit to senior profile indices or resulting “high-potential” designation based on the data) versus one focused on enhancing a wide range of managerial skills around collaboration that is not linked to compensation or promotions. The key, then, as in any data-driven consulting effort, when designing a new 360 Feedback system (Bracken et al., 2016; Church & Waclawski, 2001) is to contract (or determine) the true purpose of the process up front before heading into the rest of the design and implementation stages. Moreover, it is equally critical to fully understand the purpose, both stated and real—sometimes they may not be the same—when considering revisions or enhancements to an existing ongoing application.
2. Feedback Is No Longer for Development Only: Although this was already a key premise going into the structure of the handbook (as noted previously) and the selection of chapter topics based on prior arguments we have made elsewhere (e.g., Bracken & Church, 2013; Bracken et al., 2016), many of the authors echoed our
conviction even in sections not intended for that part of the discussion. Although we would all agree that 360 Feedback is a key process aimed at developing individuals (and groups and organizations), we were struck by how many of our colleagues highlighted the ways in which these processes and the data gathered as a result can be used to inform or make decisions in organizations today. While some still support the development-only model, and in targeted circumstances such as pure leadership capability-building programs, culture change efforts, or targeted coaching interventions, the general trend appears to be toward using the data in ways that add value to the individual and the business. The last is key, of course, to our definition of whether a given 360 Feedback process is strategic in nature so it makes sense. Still, it appears as though the future some of us discussed in the original handbook (Bracken et al., 2001) is now the present. 360 Feedback is the most commonly used tool for identifying high-potential individuals, assessing senior executives for succession-planning efforts (e.g., Church & Rotolo, 2013; Silzer & Church, 2010), and increasingly finding its way into more robust performance management systems. The key, of course, which is highlighted in many of the chapters here, is to ensure the purpose and design elements are done the right way. It is not simply a case of using the same old 360 Feedback tools an organization has in place (or introducing some standard tool off the shelf) and changing the primary intent. That would result in serious risk to the organization and potential chaos among the employee population. Rather, we see organizations moving toward designing and implementing 360 Feedback systems that are focused on transparency of purpose, use sound measurement properties, are linked to the strategic direction of the business, and are empirically validated to ensure the results are predicting the right types of expected outcomes.
At this point, it is not about whether we should or should not use 360 data for these more strategic types of decision-making applications, but rather how best to do so. As the legal landscape continues to increase in complexity, including new data privacy regulations as well as adhering to the standard Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in the United States, it is paramount that organizations follow the recommendations for practice included in this volume to ensure they are taking the steps required to utilize their 360 Feedback systems to the best possible advantage (and least possible risk). This means ensuring that practitioners trained in I-O psychology and related disciplines are involved in the design and validation process along the way.
3. The Technology of 360 Feedback Is Both an Art and a Science: Although much of the content of this handbook focuses on the science of 360 Feedback systems,
we believe it is also important to recognize that creating effective strategic 360 processes is an art form as well. Just because people can do something (e.g., create and launch their own tools online) does not mean it is always a good idea. While technology has enabled a significantly broader access to 360 Feedback tools than ever before (some of us even remember doing these processes using optical scan forms and paper-based methods) and to all types of professionals, including those in HR and even line managers, there is no guarantee that it will be done well. In fact, we have seen many examples where well-intentioned leaders have created their own 360 processes using poorly written items, lopsided scales, and risky administration and reporting designs. While at first this might seem empowering to them and encouraging to those of us who have deep experience in the process (after all, it does speak to the perceived value of the methodology and the data), the risk associated with these rogue implementations is significant. Biased data, breaches in confidentiality, and inappropriate insights can lead to bad talent management decisions and larger negative consequences in the organization in terms of declines in employee engagement, trust in the company, and belief in the integrity of its leadership (not to mention legal exposure and poor business performance if the wrong leader is placed in a role based on a poor measure). Moreover, blind reliance on the science itself is no better. The emerging practice areas of Big Data and talent analytics suffers from a similar argument in that without the appropriate strategic oversight and context on the part of those developing the insights, the resulting information delivered may be entirely off base or suspect from a moral and ethical level (Church & Burke, 2017). The more we rely on artificial intelligence and machine learning to drive our efforts in organizations, the more potential we have for these issues here as well. How do machines know what the right type of linkage or relationship is to focus on when the people designing and managing them do not? Thus, the art of 360 Feedback lies within (a) the content that is to be measured (i.e., the identification and drafting of unique competencies and behaviors); (b) the design and implementation decisions with appropriate trade-offs regarding what will and will not work in a given organizational setting; (c) the determination of the appropriate and impactful insights for both individuals and organizations for development and decision-making; and (d) methods to ensure that all those actions were performed as recommended, with adjustment and consequences for deviations by any user. The science of 360 Feedback (i.e., ensuring the right levels of transparency, confidentiality, validity, and accountability are present), on the other hand, has key elements that must be met every time a new process is launched. In thinking about the chapter contents
we selected for the handbook and those we did not pursue, this point has become even more salient for us. We firmly believe that the practice of 360 Feedback needs to be grounded in the appropriate philosophical, theoretical, and methodological models to ensure lasting success for both development and decision-making in talent management–related applications.
4. 360 Feedback Is Here to Stay: Years ago, there were many debates in the field concerning whether 360 Feedback was simply a fad or a truly important and lasting intervention for individuals and organizations. While some practitioners suggested it would one day fade into the distance, benchmark data cited previously as well as our work on the handbook have shown this not to be the case at all. If anything, 360 Feedback as a process is more vibrant and integrated than ever before. It is one of the core tools that organizations rely on for helping their employees grow and develop, as well as informing talent management and performance-based outcomes. Even though not every application described in this book follows our formal definition of 360 Feedback, we are excited to see that the basic concepts come to life in such comprehensive and innovative ways—from individuals to teams to the organization as a system, to the board of directors. Collecting behaviorally based ratings and observations (e.g., write-in comments) from a variety of others in an organization and using that data for meeting individual growth and organizational talent needs is a vital component of the way organizations do business. Moreover, even if (or when) the robots take over for much of the work that leaders, managers, and HR do in organizations today, the ability to interpret and contextualize (and provide one-to-one feedback directly to clients) results and insights from 360 Feedback processes will remain in the hands of “human” trained professionals (Dotlich, 2018). There is a future yet for all of us.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the purpose of The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback is to highlight the very latest theory, research, and practice regarding the state of the field in a comprehensive yet approachable manner. In this volume, you will find recommendations, best practices, case examples, and key questions to consider for almost any type of 360 Feedback application currently imaginable. The key to all of it is ensuring the work we do around the process is purposeful and strategic in nature. We hope the book meets expectations and helps others in organizations, whether they are I-O psychologists, OD practitioners, HR business partners, learning and development professionals, or leaders and managers in the business, achieve these lofty goals.
REFERENCES
Boudreau, J. W., Jesuthasan, R., & Creelman, D. (2015). Lead the work: Navigating a world beyond employment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “new” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on the unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback. People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360 degree feedback. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(4), 761–794.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Four trends shaping the future of organizations and organization development. OD Practitioner, 49(3), 14–22.
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(3), 199–223.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (2001). A five phase framework for designing a successful multirater feedback system. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(2), 82–95.
Dotlich, D. (2018). In first person: The future of C-suite potential in the age of robotics. People & Strategy, 41(1), 48–49.
London, M. (2001). The great debate: Should multisource feedback be used for administration or development only? In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback (pp. 368–388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still fighting the “war for talent”? Bridging the science versus practice gap. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 169–173. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9220-y
Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2010 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep tomorrow’s employees today. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(5), 157–182.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2010). Identifying and assessing high potential talent: Current organizational practices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 213–279; SIOP Professional Practice Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 3D Group. (2016). Current practices in 360 degree feedback (5th ed.). Emeryville, CA: 3D Group.
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Executive development best practices guide Washington, DC: Author.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2013). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
WHAT IS “STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK”?
DAVID W. BRACKEN
A bevy of associates and I (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, Pollman, & McCauley, 1997; Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001) have diagnosed the application of 360 Feedback for solely developmental purposes versus use in decisions about employees. Some have argued that the distinction between “development only” and “decision-making” is either not fruitful (Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005) or an artificial one (Bracken & Church, 2013). But, the discussion has not gone away, and drawing attention to the requirements for design, implementation, and use of data provided by a 360 process when used as an assessment can be useful (Bracken & Timmreck, 2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001).
There is no source that I can point to where the phrase “Strategic 360 Feedback” is used in the literature, though some vendors have integrated the phrase into their marketing. Dale Rose and I have been using the name “Strategic 360 Forum” for about 6 years in conjunction with a consortium of 360 users where the primary criterion for membership was the use of the tool for decision-making (i.e., integration into human resource (HR) systems). This book puts a stake in the ground regarding what Strategic 360 Feedback means, much as we have made a definitive statement about what 360 Feedback is and is not (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016).
This chapter integrates the discussions with Chapter 3 by Campion, Campion, and Campion, and I encourage the reader to be familiar with that content. In Box 3.1, the first major heading is Strategic Considerations, and I quote many of their propositions and use
them to make some assertions regarding their relevance to a Strategic 360 Feedback process (though my assertions may not match those of the Campions were they given the luxury and space to do so in their own chapter).
The definition of Strategic 360 Feedback that we present here contains very little that has not been said before. Bernardin (1986) was perhaps the earliest proponent of using feedback in performance appraisals. We point to London, Smither, and Adsit’s (1997) “Accountability” article as the most comprehensive statement of the potential of the process to improve decisions in talent management systems when used correctly, including applying the concept of accountability to focal leaders, raters, and the organization. This handbook attempts to move the field ahead by collecting best practices and experiences where many of those ideas have been applied in the interim 30+ years.
WHAT IS STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK?
When this handbook was conceptualized and came into being with the invitations to our contributors, we created an operational definition of strategic as it is applied to 360 Feedback processes. Our expectation was that those who were invited would make their decision regarding whether to accept based on whether their experiences and expertise were consistent with the book’s purpose, as well as providing guidance about how their content should explicitly acknowledge those ties.
Here is our four-point definition of Strategic 360 Feedback:
1. The content must be derived from the organization’s strategy and values, which are unique to that organization. Campion et al. (Chapter 3) stated this requirement as, “The process and performance indicators (items) rated should be linked to the organizational strategy and aligned with business goals and objectives” (p. 22). The content is sometimes derived from the organization’s values, where they can be explicit (the ones that hang on the wall) or implicit (which some people call “culture”).
Campion et al. (Chapter 3) take this requirement a step further by applying it not only to the content but also to the entire process: “The concept of using 360 Feedback should be consistent with the culture of the organization to ensure readiness and fit (e.g., open communication, open to feedback, peer review valued, not overly hierarchical, learning and development oriented, low fear of reprisal, etc.)” (p. 21).
This practice is a bit tricky because 360 Feedback can help create a climate via both the behaviors exhibited by leaders in support of the process and aligned behavior change
that occurs because of feedback. This view of culture is consistent with my definition of organizational culture, adapted from the book Execution (Bossidy & Charan, 2002), as the behaviors that leaders exhibit, encourage, and tolerate. The behaviors of leadership and focal leaders (if they are different) are both under scrutiny by the followership before, during, and especially after the 360 process is conducted. This, in turn, leads to another related best practice from the Campions in Chapter 3: “The process should be developed with the input of subject matter experts (e.g., incumbents, managers, users of the system, etc.) to ensure that it meets their needs and expectations, and that they will be committed to its implementation” (p. 22). This specific practice expands alignment to all facets of the process, starting with purpose. The health of a 360 system is highly dependent on its formal and informal support by all stakeholders, even though each stakeholder group has different priorities and definitions of success (Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001). If any of those groups is not committed to its success, it is likely that the process will not survive beyond its first round of feedback collection.
2. The process must be designed and implemented in such a way that the results are sufficiently reliable and valid that we can use them to make decisions about the leaders (as in Point 3). This is not an easy goal to achieve, as discussed by Fleenor in Chapter 14 and Bracken and Rotolo in Chapter 15. Despite the challenges in establishing both reliability and validity in 360 processes, benchmark studies continue to indicate that 360s are the most commonly used form of assessment in both public and private sectors (Church & Rotolo, 2013; United States Office of Personnel Management, 2012).
When 360 Feedback processes are used for decision-making, the knee-jerk reaction of some practitioners is to treat them as “tests,” subject to psychometric scrutiny that often includes demands for criterion-related validity studies. This topic is further explored by Pulakos and Rose in Chapter 17, where they present the case for the use of 360 data as both predictor and criterion (performance) measures.
3. The results of Strategic 360s are integrated with important talent management and development processes, such as leadership development and training, performance management, staffing (internal movement), succession planning, and high-potential processes. Referring again to Chapter 3, the Campions state, “The process should be integrated with other human resource (HR) systems, such as compensation or promotion” (p. 21). Integration with HR processes is clearly a type of decision-making. Allan and I (Bracken & Church, 2013) contended that
even supposedly “development-only” processes that result in decisions regarding training and other developmental experiences are decisions that often have substantial effects on the careers of the focal leaders. Under the umbrella of “talent management,” almost any decision could be improved by multisource input.
Because 360 Feedback processes are systems whose validity is affected by all aspects of implementation (Bracken & Rose, 2011; Bracken & Rotolo, 2018), we need to repeat the London et al. (1997) mantra that integration into HR/talent management systems also creates and requires accountability. While we usually think of accountability as referring primarily to the focal leader, London et al. (1997) forced us to examine the signs that the organization supports the system by its actions and decisions. As another best practice proposed by Campion et al. (Chapter 3), “The process should have the support of top management” (p. XX). This best practice may be the sine qua non of Strategic 360 Feedback. By definition, if it is not supported by senior management, it is no longer “strategic.”
4. Participation must be inclusive, that is, a census of the leaders/managers in the organizational unit (e.g., total company, division, location, function, level). This practice is not included in the Campion et al. (Chapter 3) list of best practices but was initially proposed by Bracken and Rose (2011). We say “leaders/managers” because a true 360 requires that direct reports are a rater group. One reason for this requirement is that, if the data are to be used to make personnel decisions, it usually requires comparing individuals, which in turn requires that everyone has the same data available. This requirement also enables us to use Strategic 360s to create organizational change, as in “large scale change occurs when a lot of people change just a little” (Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001, p. 1).
Some of our contributors present case studies where the focal leader is just that (i.e., a single person). If all the other requirements are met (alignment, reliability/validity, used for decision-making), then we would support the position that there is no need for comparisons, and the decision will be made on some other metric(s). If there are other focal leaders being considered as part of the decision (e.g., promotion), then those leaders should participate as well.
USES FOR STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK
A 360 Feedback system is likely to be considered strategic if it is designed to serve one or more of the following uses:
• Creates sustainable change in behaviors valued by an organization (i.e., those aligned with values, competencies, or strategies)
• Creates behavior change in key leader(s) whose actions carry significant influence through decision-making and modeling
• Informs decisions integral to organization-wide talent management processes (e.g., pay, promotions, development, training, staffing) or corporate strategy (pursue growth, focus on operational efficiencies, consolidate operations)
• Informs decisions (selection, development, retention, assignments) of key subpopulations (e.g., high potentials, succession plans)
• Supports the creation and maintenance of a feedback culture that creates awareness coupled with accountability for change
QUALIFIERS
Let me hasten to say that (a) all 360s, strategic or not, should have a development focus, and (b) none of this minimizes the value of 360 processes that are used in support of the development of leaders, one at a time. There is no question that innumerable leaders have benefitted from the awareness created by feedback, often also supported by a coach who helps not only by managing the use of the feedback but also by creating accountability for the constructive use of the feedback. We are not proposing, by any stretch, that those types of 360 Feedback processes need to change.
We do request, however, that practitioners who are from that school be open to the proposal that there are uses of this powerful tool that can be of benefit outside the development-only, one-person-at-a-time world. I had a short debate on LinkedIn with a development-only proponent that ended abruptly when he exclaimed, “It should be used only for development. Full stop.” (He is British.) For him, there was no use in further discussion. On the contrary, we hope that a book like this demonstrates that there can be productive, parallel (sometimes intersecting) universes of applications for 360 Feedback.
REFERENCES
Bernardin, J. H. (1986). Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information about managers. Human Resource Management, 25(3), 421–439.
Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York, NY: Crown Business.
Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “new” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on the unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback. People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.
Bracken, D. W., Dalton, M. A., Jako, R. A., McCauley, C. D., & Pollman, V. A. (1997). Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
